NEW DWELLING AT THE PINFOLD, MONYASH ROAD, BAKEWELL

PLANNING STATEMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application for planning permission stems from a discussion between the area planning officer for the Peak District National Park Authority and the agent for the applicant. It is intended to overcome an objection by the LPA to previous proposals for a dwelling at the pinfold site on the grounds of a specific policy provision in the Development Plan. The application is for planning permission for an open-market dwelling as shown and described on the submitted plans and in accompanying documents.

1.2 The application is accompanied by a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is intended to regulate the use of adjacent land in the ownership of the applicant, outside the curtilage of the proposed dwelling.

1.3 The scheme is identical to that put forward under application NP/DDD/0109/0052, currently at appeal (APP/M9496/A/09/2101881/NWF), except that, firstly, the application site encompasses the whole of the land in the ownership of the applicant and, secondly, there is no reliance on former Structure Plan policy HC1(a), relating to conversion of traditional buildings to residential use.

2. PLANNING CONTEXT

2.1 The land on Monyash Road, on which the former pinfold is located, has been the subject of a number of proposals in recent years. These have stemmed from the anomalous nature of the lawful use of the land, whereby on the one hand there is an unrestricted agricultural use, while on the other the implications of this use are disturbing to local residents and the national park authority itself.

2.2 All attempts to improve the beneficial use of the land through the planning process have been rebuffed by the authority. But it is the existing use itself that is the real issue. It is one thing for the authority to extol the ‘encircling fields and wooded areas, some of which come close to the town centre’ (Local Plan paragraph 12.8), but quite another to accept the consequences. The necessary importation of foodstuffs and bedding, mainly hay and straw, together with the movement of animals, produces heavy vehicle movements on the site and in Monyash Road. Agricultural equipment and vehicles have to be stored in the open, together with the hay, straw and so on.

2.3 This situation is far from ideal in this location. In recognizing this problem, my client has taken a two-pronged approach towards alleviation: he has proposed agricultural improvements on one hand and conversion of the pinfold building to new uses on the other. On the agricultural side, he has applied for permission for two versions of a storage building, for a field shelter, a private way and improvements to the existing livestock building, all without success. He has proposed to move his base to Ilam, where his proposals for new livestock and storage buildings were supported by the case officer, but refused at committee (NP/SM/0906/0837). However, his recent appeals relating to applications on the pinfold site for retention of a hardstanding, for a concrete forecourt and for the erection of manure bays have all been allowed (APP/M9496/A/08/2091673 et al).

2.4 An alternative use at the pinfold building remains the better option, for it will secure enhancement, not only of the building itself, but also of the remainder of the site. The hardstanding and manure bays will not be required if the current residential proposal is approved. Beyond the curtilage of the dwelling, the hardstanding will be replaced with soil and grass, so as to restore the green appearance of the field.

2.5 My client has pursued alternative uses more tentatively, because his primary concern has been to develop his farming business. In 2004 he proposed conversion to office use (NP/DDD/0404/0501). Although this was unsuccessful, the Inspector to the ensuing appeal made a number of positive comments regarding conversion, to which reference is made later. The first application for residential use (NP/DDD/0305/0314) was made on the basis of apparent support from the case officer at the time. It was withdrawn when it became clear that the official attitude was that agricultural options had not been fully explored. As mentioned above, the second application is at appeal.

2.6 Although the present residential application is modelled largely on the original proposal, much has changed in terms of the planning context in the interim.

2.7 Firstly, approval has been given for relocation of the existing access to the site to the position shown on the application drawing, number PB/19B. This was granted in 2006 (NP/DDD/0406/0372), but with unreasonable time conditions attached. An application for removal of these conditions was refused (NP/DDD/1206/1119), but allowed on appeal.

2.8 Secondly, important points in favour of residential use have been established through a number of appeals. In the appeal relating to office use (APP/M9496/A/04/1160590), the Inspector confirmed that the pinfold building was of vernacular interest and that Local Plan policy LC8, Conversion of Buildings of Historic or Vernacular Interest, applied. This policy states that conversion of such a building to a use other than that for which it was designed will be permitted, subject to certain safeguards. The opinion of the Inspector confirmed advice provided by the archaeologist to the national park concerning the vernacular interest of the site.

2.9 The Inspector went on to say that he found the proposed increase in height of the building too great for the purposes of policy LC8 and that the proposed car park would have an adverse effect on the adjacent open space. However, a lesser increase in height has been found acceptable by the Inspector to a later appeal and the car park shown on the office scheme has been omitted.

2.10 It is interesting to note that the Inspector to the office appeal concluded that the proposed change of use of the building and ‘its modest scale’ would comply with employment policies in the Development Plan. It is considered that this comment has established that change of use at the pinfold building is acceptable per se.

2.11 The Inspector to the office appeal concluded also that the increased height of the building would not result in any material loss of outlook for occupiers of the adjacent property to the south, Spire View.

2.12 The question of scale was examined in greater depth in a later appeal, this time against refusal of planning permission for improvements to the pinfold building in its existing use for housing livestock (APP/M9496/A/07/2045514 for NP/DDD/1205/1234). For the purposes of this development the increase in overall height of the building was less than that for the office conversion and, of particular importance, the increase in eaves height was reduced from 1.7 metres to 1.2 metres.

2.13 The comments of the Inspector are of crucial importance and require no elaboration. They are quoted in full, as follows.

‘24. The NPA’s objection to the appearance of the proposal is that the alterations would unduly increase the prominence of the building and result in a structure that appeared overly tall; that is, its height would be out of proportion with its gable width and its overall form would be out of keeping with the style and tradition of local buildings. However, when questioned, the NPA’s witness agreed that the resulting building would be closer to the form of nearby vernacular buildings than the existing pinfold building. I agree and, from my observations of agricultural buildings nearby, I consider that the proposed alterations would not produce a building that was overly tall in relation to its width.

25. The B5505 rises quite steeply from the centre of Bakewell past the pinfold building. On this approach the building is seen against a backcloth of dwellings rising further up the same side of the classified road and the steeply sloping grassland to the east. The dwellings on the opposite side of Monyash Road also stand well above the appeal building. When approaching Bakewell in the opposite direction, the appeal building is largely screened by the adjoining dwelling. The proposed alterations to the pinfold building would increase its height from some 4m to about 6.2m, on a building that does not have a large footprint for an agricultural building, some 12m by 5.5m. In my view, the alterations would not result in a structure that was unduly prominent in this setting.

26. Having regard to my findings in the previous two paragraphs and the visual improvements that would result from the upgrading of the dilapidated nature of the existing structure, I conclude on this issue that the proposed alterations to the pinfold building would not visually harm the locality. As a consequence, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Important Open Space within Bakewell and the setting of the Bakewell Conservation Area and the Important Open Space within the Conservation Area. And the proposal would not materially conflict with the content or aims of the Structure Plan and Local Plan policies that seek to protect these areas and the National Park as a whole.’

2.14 Although these comments were made in connection with an agricultural building, they apply equally to the current proposal for a dwelling. Indeed, the finished appearance of the building will resemble a traditional stone barn, with square openings at first-floor level and a central cart opening.

2.15 In fact the increase in height as proposed currently will be slightly less than was proposed for the livestock building. The overall height will be 5.9 metres compared with 6.2 metres and the increase in eaves height will be 1 metre. The eaves height of the new dwelling will be 3.6 metres above ground, which should be compared with traditional eaves heights in the national park in the range of 3.5 metres to 4.0 metres.

2.16 PPS3: Housing sets out the strategic housing policy objectives of the Government. Everyone should have the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. Specific outcomes that the planning system should deliver include a high quality of housing and a mix of types and values, together with effective use of the land. Deliverability is important. The current proposals represent an effective use of land that has proved to be contentious and are deliverable immediately permission is granted.

2.17 The East Midlands Regional Plan was adopted in March 2009. This is the regional spatial strategy. Because the Peak District National Park Authority has not adopted its Core Strategy in time to replace the Structure Plan, a hiatus has ensued. The response of the authority has been to pass a resolution stating that the Structure Plan still represents the views of the authority and is a material consideration, even though it does not now form part of the Development Plan. The Development Plan consists of the East Midlands Regional Plan and the Peak District National Park Local Plan.

2.18 Policies in the Regional Plan are supportive generally of the type of development proposed in this appeal. Policy 1 states, inter alia, that new affordable and market housing should extend choice in all communities in the region. Policy 8 advocates the conservation and enhancement of the Peak District National Park.

2.19 Regional Housing Provision is considered in Policy 13a of the East Midlands Regional Plan. Total housing provision figures are given for each sub-area. These are the figures that local planning authorities should plan for over the plan period of 2006 to 2026, though higher numbers may be tested. Although no targets are set specifically for the Peak District National Park, it is clear from Footnote 4 to Policy 13a that any provision in Bakewell will form part of the allocation for Derbyshire Dales Housing Authority, within which Bakewell lies. The total provision for Derbyshire Dales is 4000 dwellings, or 200 per year.

2.20 The Local Plan, adopted in 2001, was intended to supplement the Structure Plan, adopted in 1994, with detailed operational policies. On housing, the Local Plan summarizes the circumstances, set out in the Structure Plan, where open-market dwellings will be allowed, in paragraph 4.8. ‘Residential development will only be allowed where (a) it forms part of the Bakewell Town Centre redevelopment proposals (GS2), (b) it involves the conversion of an existing building of traditional design in a town or village, provided it meets with conservation policies for design and the wider setting (HC1a), (c) it is necessary for the purposes of agriculture or forestry (HC1b, C6ii), (d) in settlements, it is necessary for the relocation of non-conforming uses or would enhance the valued characteristics of the Park (HC1c).’

2.21 The policy of allowing open-market dwellings where the result is an enhancement of the valued characteristics of the Park is explained in paragraph 3.12 of the Local Plan, which states as follows. ‘Structure Plan Policy HC1(c) permits residential development to meet general demand where it would achieve an enhancement of the current position or where the purpose of the development is to enable relocation of a non-conforming use (an existing use which conflicts with the amenity or appearance of the area which merits a remedy).’

2.22 The pinfold building and its forecourt lie outside Bakewell Conservation Area and consequently outside the Important Open Space within the Conservation Area; they also lie outside the Important Open Space within Bakewell. The boundary of the Conservation Area passes to the north, slanting towards the south east. Although the land to the north and south east of the pinfold building is designated as open space, in reality the area adjacent to the pinfold building does not present an open aspect. This is because it has been closely involved with agricultural activities in and around the pinfold building, chiefly livestock housing and free-range egg production, which have required several items of ancillary accommodation to be provided and the storage in the open of animal feed and bedding, agricultural machinery and equipment and farm vehicles.

2.23 Bearing in mind the continuing relevance of the Structure Plan, reference should be made to Structure Plan policy C14: Enhancement and Improvement, which states as follows: ‘(a) Wherever development is permitted, a design will be sought that respects the character of the area and, where appropriate, incorporates habitat conservation or creation, landscape treatment (often including tree planting) and the provision of other features which enhance the valued characteristics of the area. (b) Opportunities will be taken to enhance the National Park by the treatment or removal of undesirable features or buildings. Work should be undertaken in a manner which conserves the valued characteristics of the site and its surroundings’. C14 provides justification for development under housing policy HC1(c), which permits open-market residential development in settlements ‘which is necessary for the relocation of non-conforming uses or which would enhance the valued characteristics of the Park’. One way to demonstrate that the existing use does not conform is to imagine what would happen if the pinfold building did not exist and the applicant applied for permission to erect a livestock building where it stands: of course, the application would be refused.

2.24 Planning permission exists already for the creation of a fenced and gated driveway adjacent to the pinfold building. This is part of the development approved under NP/DDD/0406/0372, which permits the building of a wall fronting Monyash Road and relocation of the access to the site.

2.25 It is submitted that the development proposed in this application complies with the requirements of former Structure Plan policy HC1(c)

3. DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT

3.1 The application site consists of the pinfold building and its curtilage, together with the adjacent open space. Access is approved already. The development produces a three-bedroom house on the footprint of the existing livestock building. Planting with indigenous shrubs, such as hawthorn, blackthorn and hazel, is proposed to the northern boundary and a hawthorn hedge along the eastern boundary. A gate will provide access to the field beyond.

3.2 The surroundings of the site consist of mature residential development along both sides of Monyash Road and around the perimeter of the open space. The land rises steeply over the field to the east and less steeply on the west side of Monyash Road. The pinfold building lies at a considerably lower level than the neighbouring property to the south, Spire View, which was originally a slaughterhouse used in conjunction with the pinfold.

3.3 Surrounding properties are mostly of traditional two-storey construction, with stone walls and slated roofs. The pinfold building abuts a high retaining wall to Spire View and is perceived as an adjunct to built development on this side of Monyash Road. Improving its proportions and appearance, as proposed in this application, will enhance the transition to the open space to the north.

3.4 The development is similar in external appearance to previous proposals, but the building as now proposed is considerably lower. Even at its original height, in the office conversion, the appeal Inspector acknowledged that the resulting structure was ‘not unattractive’. It will resemble a traditional stone barn, of which there are numerous examples in the locality.

3.5 Energy performance is an important factor to take into account and it is considered generally that stone buildings have advantages in this respect. This is because of the thermal mass of the material, which regulates internal temperatures during periods of rapid change, and also because locally sourced, reclaimed materials such as limestone and gritstone have low ‘embodied energy’, on account of both the absence of a manufacturing process and moderate transport costs. It is proposed to use timber windows in preference to uPVC, because the latter material has very high embodied energy, is difficult to recycle and does not biodegrade. Double glazing and insulation to walls, floor and roof will enhance thermal performance.

3.6 Access to the development will be convenient to all users and, in this regard, planning permission will release the funds necessary to carry out the highway improvement works already approved. As well as relocating the access to the pinfold site to a safer point on Monyash Road, these involve rebuilding of the roadside wall in such a position as to provide a continuous footway, up to 1.8 metres wide, across the whole of the frontage of the land owned by my client.

3.7 Access to the new dwelling for wheelchair users will be facilitated by positioning car parking bays in the forecourt to the building and by level access at the front entrance door.

3.8 External landscaping has been designed to merge softly into the adjacent open space, by the use not only of indigenous planting but also grass-covered concrete blocks, to provide a natural green surface. This area corresponds to the access strip approved over the existing hardstanding to the north of the pinfold building, under NP/DDD/0406/0372, so there is no incursion into the adjacent field. It will be part of the external amenity space for the new dwelling, which is necessarily compact in order to comply with density standards in PPS 3.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1 For the purposes of this application for planning permission, the applicant has agreed to disregard the effect of former Structure Plan policy HC1(a), which provides for ‘conversion of an existing building of traditional design and materials’ to an open-market dwelling.

4.2 It is the opinion of the applicant that the proposal should be viewed as complying with HC1(c), which allows for approvals of open-market dwellings which will enhance the valued characteristics of the Park or relocate non-conforming uses, for there can be no doubt that the application site is in dire need of enhancement and has been for a very long time. The expression non-conforming use is defined in Local Plan paragraph 3.12 as ‘an existing use which conflicts with the amenity or appearance of the area which merits a remedy’. This fits the application site perfectly, for it is indisputable that continued rearing of livestock in the pinfold building is incompatible with the amenity or appearance of the area. The consistent objection of Bakewell Town Council and neighbouring residents to proposals for agricultural works, which have always been regarded as intensification, underlines this point. Approval of the development proposed will allow the applicant to relocate the hub of his agricultural business away from the pinfold site. As to the issue of sustainability, the appellant suggests that use as an open-market dwelling within a tightly defined curtilage is probably the most effective means of securing the longterm maintenance of the proposed building.

4.3 The development proposed in this application will not only provide an attractive dwelling in an appropriate area, but will also remove the problems associated with the present agricultural use of the existing building and adjacent land. There will no longer be a need for a new agricultural storage building and the existing caravan, mobile store, machinery, equipment and vehicles will be taken away. Straw, hay, haylage, corn and fodder will not be required for housed livestock. Associated commercial traffic movements will cease. Noise and smells generated by intensive livestock housing will cease, as will the production of manure from overwintering in the pinfold building. The approved manure bays, features which would have been obvious from Monyash Road, will not be constructed. In addition, the existing hardstanding, also encroaching into the open space, will be removed.

4.4 The development proposed will reinvigorate a rundown stretch of Monyash Road and create a significant visual improvement. In addition, there will be a substantial planning gain from the creation of a safe footway on this side of Monyash Road. Like the national park authority and neighbouring residents, my client is dissatisfied with the condition of the pinfold site. He considers that the current proposals will help to re-establish the sense of openness and simplicity that the site has lost. This development will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of this part of the national park and it is considered, therefore, that it is worthy of support.

4.5 The unilateral obligation that accompanies this application provides for restoration of the field for summer grazing as well as other commitments, on receipt of planning permission for the development proposed in the application.